The Selfish, Stupidity of People

[Misfit]

3 hours ago, Bleednipple said:

Okay, to Misfit's poser...

1.   Firstly, the fact that Mr X has been travelling 30 miles for healthcare is completely irrelevant to the questions at hand.

2.   The government has enacted public health measures in an emergency, on an indiscriminate 'universal' basis as a means to achieve high effect on limiting disease spread. Inevitably that is not equitable to every individual or group, everyone has suffered differently from the lockdown restrictions. Could govt have enacted more positive-discriminatory measures (eg people who've been 'sensible' can now be granted extra freedoms)? Highly desirable in principle but I would say no, that's just not practical.* I think the majority of the public have supported that approach.

3.    Should Mr X break the law? If we accept the rule of law in a democracy, no. Would he be foolish to disobey and break the law, well only he can decide that.

* Similarly, the govt says you must have your (modern!) car MOT'd every year, regardless of whether you are a mechanical numpty or have an advanced degree in automotive engineering and regularly inspect and service your car to a high standard. Okay perhaps not a perfect parallel because having to get your car MOT'd isn't the same infringement of liberty as having to stay at home for months. But it's an example of 'blanket' regulation that's generally accepted.

Nigel

I hope that Chris has a good recovery that is without question, I have ask the question here as the topic is selfish, stupidity of people. 

Nigel 

I agree the law is universal generic to all, but letters to isolate after the 15th Feb, to March 31st is a guideline, X is having COVID tests and is attending hospital 30 miles away once a week for a procedure that lasts all day. The tests therefore are assumed, negative, as attending hospital as outpatient in a green zone, is continuing. 

Therefore perhaps a risk to others is low, now x accepts that a police officer or the courts will determine whether any activity is permissible or illegal, but as indicated x accepts that responsibility paying any fine imposed with a smile, just to enjoy driving his car while he can.  Not with 150 guests at a lock in or thirty at a birthday party.

We all drive our cars and I suggest some exceed the speed limit and accept the consequences if caught.  So if there is little risk to others, one is already travelling 60 miles round trip within guidelines to get treatment and or COVID tests. Perhaps having limited time available to enjoy the time available.

I questioned, 

1/should the Government be able to impose that on an individual?
2/Would that person be irresponsible, foolish, if x ignores that instruction.

3/ What do forum users think? 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Misfit

[Graham]

Well Mifit you asked my thoughts;

My initial reaction was outrage but after reading the 'measured' debate on the forum some good points have been brought up. However nobody, I'm sure, would disagree that the outcome for Chris is awful.

With regards to the actions of the 2 individuals concerned was there a 'need' to climb to the top of a mountain or a 'want' and to be honest I don't know, Was the weather forecast for fair and fine sky's , I don't know, where the individuals previously fully healthy or had they both been advised to refrain from any physical exercise again I don't know, where they experienced mountain walkers fully kitted and equipped or did they pop up there in shorts and Crocs ..............you guessed it I don't know. 

I'll be totally honest here on the occasions where I see on the news that climbers have been rescued from a mountain somewhere in appalling weather I always think why didn't you climb the bl@@dy thing in the summer when the weather is better, but thats me I guess the fun is in the challenge that why we all drive old cars. will it start will it get there ......

So yes I can see Robs point if the 2 individuals where healthy, skilled mountain professionals, fully kitted, Etc, where they breaking the covid restrictions,  probably, did they 'NEED' to do it probably not, was the risk of them doing this now greater rather than pre/post lockdown I would suggest not. 

I suppose that at the other end of the spectrum I go for a walk with the the dog this afternoon, there is an incident and whilst out I need the emergency services, whilst attending this incident (heaven forbid) an emergency services worker is injured.  Did I NEED to go out, you might argue that yes its my exercise, but could I have gone for a shorter walk or only gone out every other day to reduce the risk.

Its all where  people draw the line at 'reasonable' I guess, we are all different and our 'lines' are drawn at different points, and it might be the case that the 2 chaps that got stuck up that mountain have at some point seen one of those videos of a 'kid' hanging of a skyscraper by their finger tips and thought that was unreasonable.

BUT Would I have done it NO.  

 

Other opinions are available ..................I wish Chris a speedy recovery, as far as possible,  and stay safe all  

 

[TorontoTim]

Hi Derek,

The problem, of course, with even quite regular covid tests is that, like an MOT, they are only proving that any given person does not have covid at the exact time of taking the test (and this assumes that testing is 100% accurate).  That means that your person X could literally catch the virus walking out of the testing booth.  Given that, my personal answers to your questions are:

1. Yes

2. No

3. As above!

My current circumstances mean that I've recently undertaken travel and have (and still have to) follow a lot of testing and quarantining procedures as a result.  These are certainly a significant restriction of my liberty, but I will patiently follow them as I believe it is the responible thing to do.  There's an argument that travelling at all is NOT the responsible thing to do, but my judgement is that mine is appropriate.  However, as Graham says above, we all draw our own lines in different places and, after a great deal of thought and self-questioning, I chose mine.

Overall, I think this is a good and thoughtful debate.  The rules are sweeping and apply to all, but are a bit non-specific which is what leads to the need for judgement calls...

Stay well, all,

Tim

[Nigel Triumph]

Just caught up with this thread.

John's title for the thread captures my feelings on the matter.

Nigel

[Misfit]

 

4 hours ago, Nigel Triumph said:

Just caught up with this thread.

John's title for the thread captures my feelings on the matter.

Nigel

That was brief Nigel, I have often found your post thought provoking. John read and reacted to an event and strongly expressed his feelings, as have others . The risk taking event taken by these 2 was foolish and Chris Lewis accident will have a life long effect on him.  I though I’d ask if in different circumstances is there ever a occasion where members believe its acceptable to follow ones heart.

Are there or can there be an occasion when members feel doing something that fails to comply with Government guidelines or is subsequently determined by a police officer as illegal, is justifiable.  Where a person can take into account his personal situation and peacefully go about his business. With little, if not any, chance of having an effect on others.

Thou shall not Kill, Thou shall not steal, straightforward.

But thou shall not drive your car somewhere to enjoy the view or exercise where its possible to keep your distance from others and remain safe.Or thou shall not visit a sick or dying parent/child even if they are at home alone?

Is there a time when individuals can access a risk and choose?

 

[Bleednipple]

13 minutes ago, Misfit said:

Is there a time when individuals can access a risk and choose?

 

Simple really, yes of course we can assess the circumstances all make our own decisions. But if in so doing we break the law and get caught, we should expect to be brought to account. Any mitigating circumstances (eg your example of going to visit a sick relative, if short of providing care for them which would be a reasonable excuse anyway) will be considered in determining our punishment. That's how society and the law works.

In practice, have the police so far actually fined or prosecuted anyone for going out during lockdown to genuinely visit a sick relative? I suspect not. 

Nigel

[stillp]

Even on their journey to the mountains, it's possible they would have an accident - maybe not even their fault - and need medical attention, thereby burdening the NHS staff, and others.

Pete

[RobH]

False argument Pete. It is more likely they could have an accident by staying at home. To quote ROSPA:

The home is the most common location for an accident to happen. Every year across the UK, there are approximately 6,000 deaths as a result of home accidents. The cost to society of UK home accidents has been estimated at £45.63billion (£45,630million) annually.

During lockdown a lot of people have kept busy doing DIY. That is a profligate cause of accidents I believe. I wonder whether anyone is keeping statistics of that or is all the focus on Covid?

[John Morrison]

To try to get back to the theme of the thread.

I would urge anyone to use BBC I Player,

Tues. last, BBC 1, Breakfast, around 8.20, and see the devastation, hurt and some anger from the interviewees,

then come back and contradict the statement, that this was wholly avoidable. and that the blame lies fairly and squarly at the door of  two selfish people.

John.

[boxofbits]

2 hours ago, RobH said:

False argument Pete. It is more likely they could have an accident by staying at home. To quote ROSPA:

The home is the most common location for an accident to happen. Every year across the UK, there are approximately 6,000 deaths as a result of home accidents. The cost to society of UK home accidents has been estimated at £45.63billion (£45,630million) annually.

During lockdown a lot of people have kept busy doing DIY. That is a profligate cause of accidents I believe. I wonder whether anyone is keeping statistics of that or is all the focus on Covid?

We have to also be conscious of the fact that lockdown has most likely saved many thousands of lives worldwide that might otherwise have been lost had social activity and travel been at pre-covid levels.

Of course we will never have individual statistics to prove that save perhaps a dip in the graph of deaths due to misdemeanour. 

Having said that there are no mitigating circumstances for anyone who has breached rules and subsequently caused loss of life, in this instance serious injury to one of the mountain rescue team.

Kevin

[john.r.davies]

There seem to be plenty of people who are either selfish, stupid, or feel deprived of human contact:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/19/police-report-rise-in-large-covid-lockdown-parties-in-england